Bronwen M McNoe1, Kate C Morgaine2, Anthony I Reeder1. 1. Social & Behavioural Research Unit, Department of Preventive & Social Medicine, Dunedin, New Zealand. 2. Department of Preventive & Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions targeted to adolescents (13 to 18 years inclusive) and delivered in a secondary school setting with the purpose of improving sun protection behaviour, reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, and/or improving physiological outcomes related to UVR exposure (such as erythema or naevi development). METHODS: Peer-reviewed journal articles were identified from seven database searches (Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) to January 2020, forward citation searches of relevant articles, and monitoring of WHO INTERSUN UVR list server for recent publications. Relevant articles were collected and critically analysed using the Effective Public Health Practice framework. Two reviewers independently reviewed, and when deemed eligible, extracted data and performed quality appraisals for each study. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. There were no studies that met a "strong" quality rating, five received a "moderate" quality rating, and eight studies a "weak" quality rating. Three of those with a moderate rating found evidence for effectiveness. The most promising interventions overall (including the pilot/uncontrolled studies) were those that moved beyond a pure health education approach and used innovative approaches such as the provision of shade, or use of technology (e.g., appearance-based apps or real-time ultraviolet index (UVI) monitors). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality published studies investigating the interventions delivered in a secondary school setting to protect students from UVR. The evidence could be strengthened if researchers used consistent, standardised outcome measures for sun protection exposure and behaviour. Other factors limiting the strength of evidence were short follow-up times (largely less than 6 months) and/or nonrobust study design.
AIM: The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions targeted to adolescents (13 to 18 years inclusive) and delivered in a secondary school setting with the purpose of improving sun protection behaviour, reducing ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, and/or improving physiological outcomes related to UVR exposure (such as erythema or naevi development). METHODS: Peer-reviewed journal articles were identified from seven database searches (Cochrane, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Medline, PsycInfo, and Web of Science) to January 2020, forward citation searches of relevant articles, and monitoring of WHO INTERSUN UVR list server for recent publications. Relevant articles were collected and critically analysed using the Effective Public Health Practice framework. Two reviewers independently reviewed, and when deemed eligible, extracted data and performed quality appraisals for each study. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. There were no studies that met a "strong" quality rating, five received a "moderate" quality rating, and eight studies a "weak" quality rating. Three of those with a moderate rating found evidence for effectiveness. The most promising interventions overall (including the pilot/uncontrolled studies) were those that moved beyond a pure health education approach and used innovative approaches such as the provision of shade, or use of technology (e.g., appearance-based apps or real-time ultraviolet index (UVI) monitors). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality published studies investigating the interventions delivered in a secondary school setting to protect students from UVR. The evidence could be strengthened if researchers used consistent, standardised outcome measures for sun protection exposure and behaviour. Other factors limiting the strength of evidence were short follow-up times (largely less than 6 months) and/or nonrobust study design.
Authors: Alan C Geller; Jill Shamban; David L O'Riordan; Carolyn Slygh; John P Kinney; Steven Rosenberg Journal: Pediatr Dermatol Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.588
Authors: Cecilie Aarestrup; Camilla T Bonnesen; Lau C Thygesen; Anne F Krarup; Anne B Waagstein; Poul D Jensen; Joan Bentzen Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Marloes Fransen; Amalia Karahalios; Niyati Sharma; Dallas R English; Graham G Giles; Rodney D Sinclair Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Thomas Tenkate; Balazs Adam; Rami H Al-Rifai; B Ralph Chou; Fabriziomaria Gobba; Ivan D Ivanov; Nancy Leppink; Tom Loney; Frank Pega; Cheryl E Peters; Annette M Prüss-Üstün; Marilia Silva Paulo; Yuka Ujita; Marc Wittlich; Alberto Modenese Journal: Environ Int Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Simone Pettigrew; Ashleigh Parnell; Mark Strickland; Rachel Neale; Robyn Lucas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gill Hubbard; John Cherrie; Jonathan Gray; Richard G Kyle; Amanda Nioi; Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson; Hilary Cowie; Stephan Dombrowski Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.295